I see more now.
Can you explain exactly what ‘aether’ and ‘ethon’ mean to you platospuppy? The sources that I found all suggest aether is a made up construct from long ago, when science was still working with 4 elements; aether being the 5th. What do you mean by them?
You could have a look at the Ethereal Mechanics website for further information.
docs.google.com/document/d/1DCI … mnhMY/edit
My theory of the aether differs from Robert Distinti’s Theory, in that, I see the ethons spinning at the speed of light. The speed of light, being a dimensional signature, which may be a difficult concept to understand. Thus, light is a product of a different dimension and isn’t produced in our dimension nor does it move through our dimension either.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUTABLz1Vk[/youtube]
So, in what way can you prove the existence of Aether and Ethons?
The existence of the aether is everywhere around you. Everything you do, touch, feel, think and move is based on aether flow.
The reason science ignores the existence of an aether is only due to human arrogance, politics, fashion, consensus and stupidity.
Electricity, magnetism, gravity, light and electron attraction are all the result of aether flow.
Maxwell’s original equations prove the existence of an aether.
Every major scientist has secretly agreed that an aether does exist but are unable to say this directly due to political, fashion and consensus based fears and paranoia.
Some alternate names that scientists have used in place of the word ‘aether’ and ‘ethons’ - space time continuum, Higg’s boson, virtual photon, dark matter, dark energy, quarks and muons.
That isn’t what he asked.
James is right. The problem is that ‘Aether’ is supposed to be the ‘5th element’. Ofcourse, we might later redefine what this is, but you cannot use other scientific findings to prove the existence of ‘Aether’. For one thing, I would like to know where you got the words ; Aether’ and ‘Ethon’, so that we might discuss your definition. Else, you might be using part of definitions of all the used particles. Before we can untangle your ethons, we need to be clear on what you mean. Do you know, yourself?
And I know ALL of the details as to how and why … even how to go about proving it (already been done).
I have already given you the references for my ideas. Look back about 2 or 3 posts and you will find it.
docs.google.com/document/d/1DCI … mnhMY/edit
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sUe6SL22NA[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fljIP4l9lRM[/youtube]
Hope you can see it this time!
Try opening up your eyes, it helps! 
Do you agree with definition (2)?
And “ethon” is merely a particle of aether, right?
I have given you an entire set of references and yet, you rely on a dictionary definition? What kind of a moron are you?
The reasonably intelligent kind, the opposite of your kind.
In the first minute of this video that you provided, the biggest problem with your theory is exposed:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuUTABLz1Vk[/youtube]
That you need glasses?
Nice video james.
The problem was that it seemed to claim identity with multiple different things. If you would pick one, it would be easier, but James is trying to make a shortcut to a more historical identity of your aether. Guess that failed. So, please pick one of the things from your set and maybe everyone can work from there?
I feel like I am communicating with a zombie.
Why don’t you try the ones we are discussing moron! Ethons and aether! All the videos are about aether and ethons, so you can’t go wrong!
Please do not be so insultive.
I am only saying that there is no discussion. There is only you making claims and James and I asking what you mean with the terms you use. You have not been specific enough to actually discuss anything so far.
I will repeat a previous post so that you finally know what my position is on this matter. God help me!
Its not exactly a photon that spins. For a start, there is no such thing as a photon.
Now that we have got that out of the way, I can explain the true picture, as I see it.
First, the aether contains left and right spinning ethons (particles of aether). These particles spin at the speed of light. How do I know this, you might ask? Easy - E=MC2 The Einstein equation virtually screams this out for everybody to see. Thus, the spin energy of two particles of aether which collide and stop spinning will give out the energy of the speed of light squared. This is how the sun works. This is confirmed by the fact that the atmosphere of the sun is millions of times hotter than the sun’s interior or surface.
Note - Spin is the only logical way that the universe can store energy. If you want to make some electricity, what do you do? You have to rub two surfaces together. And what does the rubbing action do? It creates spin energy!
Now, back to light transference. The aether particles which are in what we call ‘empty space’ are alternate left and right spin ethons. These particles spin at the speed of light but are unattached to one another. When a light wave interacts with the aether, it pushes the aether particles together. This creates a two dimensional spin wave. Note - Each wave is diametrically opposed in a circular motion to the other. The spin action creates a temporary form of mass as the wave moves forward. Thus, this explains the photoelectric effect.
Again, what is aether and what is an ethon?
Please define.
He doesn’t know how to define anything.
That is the problem discussing things like this. People catch on to a though, or a reasoning that is truthful, or appears to be truthful. But upon examination, the terms are very fuzzy and meanings vary continously. That is how things are made to fit. But, it is also how the entire theory cannot be trusted; because it cannot be verified or falisified. The same problem happens when talking about ‘spirit’, or ‘soul’, psychological matters. Although psychological matters can at least be discussed by talking about observations and reasons.
I think that I will stop here; until platospuppy1 will take the time to find definitions of what he is talking about. Then we can discuss it more clearly and find out if there is a basis of truth in what he is talking about. Until he defines his terms, no one cannot decide this.
Normally I would agree, but when someone is speaking of fundamental particles and their spin, there are many things which simply cannot be true due to simple logic. Pp’s ontology is not rationally possible at all.